- From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:17:45 -0800
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
I have reviewed the draft specification dated 1/14 [1]. I am not sure about the status of this spec vis-a-vis this WG. Still, and without having reviewed any mailing list archives about prior discussion on this draft, here are some questions around the scope of this spec: 1. Are background workers executing outside the current browsing context completely out of consideration? As an implementor of sync engines and developer of applications that use them, Oracle's experience shows that trickle sync is the most usable approach and that in trickle sync an application doesn't need to be active for data to be moved back and forth. 2. Long running scripts pose a problem especially when script containers leak memory over time. Is it giving too much freedom to workers to run as long as they wish and use as many network/memory resources as they wish? 3. On devices which do not like background processes making continuous use of CPU/network resources (such as iPhone and BlackBerry). how can one take advantage of native notification services to provide up-to- date information at a low enough resource cost? 4. Why is the spec biased towards those implementors who would like to persist synchronization results and application data in the structured/ local storage only? Why not consider needs of those who would prefer to keep their data accessible directly through HTTP/S, even in the disconnected case? I hope to hear the opinion of those on this ML that are interested in WebWorkers. I look forward also to discussing this spec in the WebApps WG, when it officially gets added to its charter. Cheers, Nikunj [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-workers/current-work/ retrieved on Jan 16, 09
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2009 01:18:59 UTC